Charlie Gard and the Usurpation of the Family

July 8, 2017

As of this writing, the Great Ormond Street Hospital in
London is reconsidering its decision to turn off the life support of
11-month-old Charlie Gard [1],
and will seek a court order “to decide whether it is in the baby’s interests to
be given an experimental drug.” [2]
Charlie “has a rare and debilitating genetic condition that has no cure, and
the hospital had” previously “said that letting him die was the only humane
option to end his potential pain and suffering.” The hospital had “won a series
of court rulings, most recently last week, authorizing it to withdraw life
support.”

Now the Catechism tells us that those “whose lives are
diminished or weakened deserve special respect,” and that sick “or handicapped
persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.” (Sec. 2276) [3] It is also true that
euthanasia, “an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death
in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the
dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his
Creator.” (Sec. 2277)

But that doesn’t mean that futile acts that will have no
effect but to prolong suffering are required. On the contrary, discontinuing “medical
procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate
to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of ‘over-zealous’
treatment.” (Sec. 2278) In such a case “one does not will to cause death; one’s
inability to impede it is merely accepted.” (Sec. 2278)

Still, the decision should be made by the proper people.
Such “decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or,
if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will
and legitimate interests must always be respected.” (Sec. 2278)

So let us assume that doing anything further for Charlie
would constitute overzealous treatment, and that withdrawing his life support
could in no sense be considered as euthanasia. Let us further assume, as
appears to be the case, that nothing unlawful has been done. There remains
another consideration that makes this situation problematic.

Charlie’s parents had wanted to take him to the United
States for the experimental treatment that is now being reconsidered, and had
raised substantial sums in a fundraising effort for that purpose. [4]
But the courts denied them that opportunity. That courts anywhere would have
the authority to deny parents the right to seek a plausible, though
experimental, medical treatment to save the life of their child cannot be
defended. As the Catechism tells us, “Following the principle of subsidiarity,
larger communities should take care not to usurp the family’s prerogatives or
interfere in its life.” (Sec. 2209) [5] It is difficult
to conceive of a more unwarranted usurpation of family prerogative than to deny
parents the right to seek medical treatment for their children.

It doesn’t matter if others with more governmental authority
would make a different decision for their own children (if, indeed, they really
would). It doesn’t matter if more illustrious personages think that the best
thing to do is abandon further efforts to save the infant’s life. It’s not
their call. It’s the call of the child’s parents, and this is a prerogative
that must be respected, but was not in this case.

And it is precisely this sort of thing that causes people to
be wary of governmental solutions to social problems. It is decidedly the
business of government to see to it that all citizens receive the healthcare
that they need. [6]
But, in doing so, it must always respect the principle of subsidiarity, and not
try to do such things as usurp the parental role.

We need universal healthcare in the United States. But the
travails of Charlie Gard’s parents warn us that we should be cautious about how
much power we give government in this area. Some will say we have by this
incident been given ample reason to abandon the goal of universal healthcare.
But we can do better than simply give up on the idea, and we should. It is not
impossible to limit the power of government, even if we get it to serve human
need. Infants like Charlie deserve no less.